Conclusive Theory Assessment

Are there really instances of necessary theory acceptance or does every case of theory acceptance involve some degree of inconclusiveness?

The second law specifies that, in order to become accepted, a theory is assessed by the method employed at the time pp. 129-132. Barseghyan p. 199) envisioned three possible distinct outcomes for theory assessment: accept, not accept, and inconclusive. Are there really cases where acceptance of a theory is necessary, or is there always some degree of inconclusiveness? If there are necessary cases, is it possible for us as historians to show decisively that a theory was necessarily accepted rather than accepted after an assessment that involved some degree of inconclusiveness. We can ask the same question with regard to mosaic splits: are necessary splits theoretically possible, or are all mosaic splits the result of inconclusive assessment? And if they are possible, can we ever as historians detect them?

In the scientonomic context, this question was first formulated by Paul Patton in 2016. The question is currently accepted as a legitimate topic for discussion by Scientonomy community.

In Scientonomy, the accepted answer to the question is:

• The possible outcomes of theory assessment are satisfied, not satisfied, and inconclusive.

Scientonomic History

Acceptance Record

Here is the complete acceptance record of this question (it includes all the instances when the question was accepted as a legitimate topic for discussion by a community):

Community	Accepted From	Acceptance Indicators	Still Accepted	Accepted Until	Rejection Indicators
Scientonomy	1 April 2016	It was acknowledged as an open question by the Scientonomy Seminar 2016.	Yes

All Theories

According to our records, no theory has attempted to answer this question.

If an answer to this question is missing, please click here to add it.

Accepted Theories

According to our records, no theory on this topic has ever been accepted.

Suggested Modifications

According to our records, there have been no suggested modifications on this topic.

Current View

In Scientonomy, the accepted answer to the question is Theory Assessment Outcomes (Patton-Overgaard-Barseghyan-2017).

Theory Assessment Outcomes

Theory Assessment Outcomes (Patton-Overgaard-Barseghyan-2017) states: "The possible outcomes of theory assessment are satisfied, not satisfied, and inconclusive."

According to this ontology of theory assessment outcomes, when a theory is assessed by a method, one of the three following outcomes can obtain:1p. 199

• Satisfied: the theory is deemed to conclusively meet the requirements of the method employed at the time.
• Not Satisfied: the theory is deemed to conclusively not meet the requirements of the method employed at the time.
• Inconclusive: it is unclear whether or not the requirements of the method employed at the time are met.

While the first two assessment outcomes are conclusive, the third outcome is inconclusive, as it permits more than one possible course of action. Thus, in this view, a theory's assessment outcome is not necessarily conclusive; an inconclusive outcome is also conceivable.

This ontology is assumed by the second law of scientific change as formulated by Patton, Overgaard, and Barseghyan in 2017.

Related Topics

This question is a subquestion of Mechanism of Theory Acceptance.